tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC December 6, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST
>> no doubt. but let's be very clear here tonight that you would be on top of that ticket. that would be finney/schultz. >> okay. >> i would not aspire to the office of visibility -- i would just want to outdo dick cheney, the way he used air force 2 and go around hunting and fishing all over the country. >> just don't shoot anybody in the face, ed. >> i wouldn't do that. karen finney, great to have you with us tonight. thanks so much. >> take care. >> that is "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. chris hayes filling in for rachel tonight. >> thank you, ed. thanks for joining us this hour. rachel has the night off, but happy wednesday, everyone, tgiw, am i right? you know how it is, things start to wind down on wednesday afternoon. you send off your last e-mail, maybe pop a beer from the office fridge and head on home for the weekend. all right, you, watching this right now, probably don't do that. but that's how your friendly neighborhood lame duck congress
rolls. the house was supposed to be in session tomorrow, was the republican leadership went ahead and canceled that thursday session, so it's wednesday and the weekend has arrived, if your job title is united states representative. amid the crush of members heading out of the capital building today, you could even spot republican congressman mo brooks of alabama biking into his five-day weekend. the house won't be back in session until tuesday of next week. but it's not like they don't do work over the weekend. super long or otherwise. many house members will go back home to their districts this weekend where, of course, they're going to be hearing from their constituents about what we are told are the very important and apparently at the moment stalled negotiations. but in the white house and the house republican congress, over how to, let's be sure we're getting this technically correct, how to cut the deficit in the medium to long-term so as to avoid an immediate and dramatic cut in the short-term. yes, that's right.
now, this may well present a problem for john boehner's caucus, because john boehner sent a letter to the president this week with his own plan, which advocates what just might be the least popular policy in american politics. okay, maybe that's hyperbole. but just be a tiny bit, i mean, mandatory gay marriage, in which every single married straight person had to immediately divorce their spouse, and accept a state-assigned same-gender spouse to replace them would probably be more popular than what john boehner proposed this week. what john boehner is advocating is making medicare available to fewer americans. as it happens, there is brand-new polling out today on how americans feel about the idea of congress using these deficit negotiations to make cuts to medicare. 79% of americans say they do not want congress to touch medicare in these deficit negotiations. 79%. if you want to get specific about john boehner's proposal,
what he wants to do to medicare is to raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67. and as it turns out, there is also recent polling on that specific proposal. and it is also super unpopular. look at this. almost 70% of americans say they oppose raising the eligibility age for medicare. that number is slightly higher among republicans than it is for the general population. more republicans oppose john boehner's plan than the already extremely high margin of the general public that opposes john boehner's plan. now, if you're following the news very closely in this slow-motion, groundhog day-esque political negotiation, maybe you already knew that john boehner wants to raise the medicare eligibility age. but if you just sort of glanced at john boehner's actual letter to the president with his proposal for medicare, you would be hard-pressed to come away with the understanding that that's what he wants to do. because john boehner never comes right out and says he wants to raise the eligibility age for medicare. instead, he says this, "the house-passed budget resolution
assumes enactment of structural medicare reform that would slow the projected explosive spending growth in this program." what he's referring to there, when he talks about the structural medicare reform from the house budget is raising the eligibility age. and rather than taking a hyper-tax, deep footnote approach as he did, he could have just come out and said nap that. he did not come out and say that. because john boehner may be many things, but he is not stupid. he understands the bind he is in. his party is antagonistic to medicare. and it is also generally funded by lots of people who would like to see medicare dissolved. and it is also a party that won people on medicare by 12 points in the last election, even though they lost the election overall by three points. in fact, john boehner's cageyness about saying what he
actually wants to do is par for the course in this debate. that is actually the norm for the politics of medicare. and the reason is a deep contradiction at the heart of our national conversation on the issue. medicare is massively, overwhelmingly popular. it is very successful. and it is, over the long-term, projected to be the biggest contributor to deficits down the road. which mean people in the country, voters everywhere, love medicare and do not want it to be cut. and wonks in washington, d.c. spend their time trying to figure out how to cut medicare. both democrat and republican. and with this very thorny contradiction in mind, politicians and think tank analysts and the like have developed a whole secondary-coated language to talk about medicare. so premium support instead of privatizing medicare, and structural medicare reform instead of raising the eligibility age. now, remember the context for all this. this is important. remember that phrase we first started hearing at the start of the health reform debate, which may be apocryphal, "keep
government hands off my medicare." the big tea party uprising was in large part a reaction to the idea, quote/unquote, of socialized medicine. it was the affordable care act, and the government, quote, takeover of health care, that fanned the flames of the post-obama tea party protest. but, of course, most of the actual republicans who were actually elected back then were elected because they ran ads like this. >> congressman brad ellsworth said he would protect our seniors. but when he got to washington, congressman ellsworth voted for the largest cuts in medicare history, over $500 billion. robin carnahan supports $500 billion in medicare cuts, hurting seniors most. rand paul doesn't support higher medicare deductibles for
seniors. conway distracts with negative ads to hide his support for obama care, which cuts medicare by $500 billion. >> that was 2010. fast forward to this year's election and the same principle carries through. each side tried to convince voters that the other guy wanted to take the hatchet to medicare. >> the biggest, coldest power play of all in obama care came at the expense of the elderly. $716 billion, funneled out of medicare by president obama >> my plan's already extended medicare by nearly a decade. their plan ends medicare as we know it. >> on medicare, for current retirees, he's cutting is $716 billion from the program. i can't understand how you can cut medicare $716 billion for current recipients of medicare. >> look, these guys haven't been big on medicare from the beginning. their party's not big on medicare from the beginning. folks, use your common sense. who do you trust on this? >> so, now, of course, given all the campaign rhetoric coming from both sides, we are on the other side of an election that
proved that there is a bipartisan consensus, that it is bad to be the kind of politician that supports cutting medicare. and even giving that very recent lesson from the election, we are entering a negotiation period where everyone in washington is trying to figure out how best to cut medicare. it is pretty weird. and that is not to say that there are not better and worse ways of cutting medicare. the white house is proposing in its opening offer, cuts of $400 billion to medicare and other social insurance programs, $40 billion a year. the president's plan would achieve those cuts mostly through tweaks in the way payments are made to drug companies and health care providers. john boehner, on the other hand, would cut medicare by changing who is eligible for it, but making it cover fewer people. so everyone is trying to make cuts to medicare. the big sticking point between the two sides is how much, and do you want to make major structural changes to the eligibility of the program.
that is, who does it cover, like john boehner is suggesting, or do you want to keep the program structurally in place, and simply reform payments, like the white house is suggesting. that is the real debate that's happening right now, though you'd be hard-pressed to figure that out, based on what everyone is saying about medicare. there is so much obfuscation, it is hard to see where the debate actually is. that is where it is. do we cut eligibility? do we shrink who the program covers? do we start to change it so it covers fewer and fewer people every year? or do we cut payments and reform the payment system? there's something else that you should really know about this issue and this debate. right now, the medicare trust fund is projected to be solvent for 12 more years. now, that might sound really bad. 12 years is not, of course, a super long time. does that mean medicare is in dire straits? no more dire than it has been for a really good chunk of the last 40 years. check this out. this is a chart of where medicare solvency was projected at various points over the years, going back to 1970. look at that. in 1970, it was only supposed to
be solvent for two more years. but miracle of miracles, 42 years later, we still have medicare. at 12 years right now, the medicare solvency projection is actually doing almost exactly average. it has sometimes been higher than that, particularly in the post-boom years, but it is often lower than it is right now. and a big reason for that, the reason medicare looks to be fairly sustainable right now is because we just passed that law. you've probably heard of it, called the affordable care act. health reform, obama care, which the republicans, let us remember, fought tooth and nail, and which spends most of its infamous 2,000 pages, throwing a whole bunch of different solutions at the actual underlying problem, that is driving the medicare cost problem, which is the cost of the rise in the growth of health care costs in general. that very controversial bill that the president and democrat spent just about every last scent of political capital on is designed to change the delivery of health care in all kinds of ways to slow the growth of
spending on health care. almost none of these changes have been fully implemented yet. and that's what's going to happen in the next few years. they will be implemented. and rather than waiting until the affordable care act is fully implemented, waiting to see what's going to work in terms of cutting costs, republicans are trying to use this prefabricated deficit crisis to start a permanent undoing of the most popular program in america. and they're doing it a month after we had an election in which everyone agreed, medicare is awesome. joining us now is congresswoman jan schakowsky, thanks so much for talking with us tonight. really appreciate it. >> thanks so much, chris. >> i find this gap between where the public is and where the budget conversation in washington is centered really frustrating and mystifying. so i would like you to explain to me where you're coming from, both from the democratic house caucus and the democratic house party.
what do you consider bright lain lines on medicare? >> you know, when the republicans talked about cutting $716 billion from medicare, the key word is really benefits. we actually made the program better when it comes to seniors, people on medicare, people with disabilities, were able to create efficiencies in medicare, beefed up the anti-fraud division of medicare, and cut billions of dollars, yes, we did, from medicare. they called it, i heard the clip you played, mitt romney say, funneled money out of medicare. no, that is not true. we made medicare for beneficiaried better. of course, the republicans confused the voters. and you saw that seniors voted by, you know, i don't know what the president is, more for the republicans. their campaign of confusion actually did work.
but, chris, i think i read differently the boehner letter about the structural changes that they want to make, meaning the voucher system. voucher care that they wanted to go back not only to raising the edge of medicare, but to turn it into a voucher program and turn it over back to the private insurance companies. a very unpopular, inefficient, bad idea that would cost seniors up to $6,000 more a year to pay for medicare benefits. >> one of the things i really like about the plan that you put together during the simpson/bowles commission, is that it questioned a lot of the underlying premises that guide the conversation we're having about fiscal policy right now. and i guess i want to ask you, given the fact that we have just thrown all these different policy mechanisms at the problem of the growth in health care spending, wouldn't it make sense
to just wait three or four years, look what's working, and then have this conversation about adjustments we're going to make long-term to medicare? i do not understand why in the wake of passing that bill, the obsession with doing something about it right now. >> well, actually, i think that would be a fine thing to do, but there are other efficiencies that we could make in medicare right now. we could ask -- we could allow medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies, and that would save a good deal of money. health care, overall, we could have a public option, which actually passed the house of representatives, which would save another $106 billion over ten years. we are doing pilot projects that make accountable care organizations get away from fee for service for every individual kind of procedure, and pay for outcomes, for making people healthier. preventative services. so i'm really not against those
kinds of efficiencies. but asking seniors, whose median income in the united states of america is $22,000 a year, to suggest that they should pay more, or that they should wait two more years. i have people crawling into my office, almost, literally, every week, saying, if i only can make it until i'm 65 years old, these are proposals that not only are wildly unpopular, but they make no sense. >> they're bad policy. >> in terms of efficient health care. >> and they don't save a lot of money, i should also note. if cost driving is what you're -- very quickly, yes or no, do you see raising the eligibility age as a red line? as the thing that if it's in the deal, you think democrats should walk away from? >> we should walk away from raising the age of medicare, absolutely. my sense is that the white house is in exactly the same place. not supporting it, thank goodness. it's a very bad and very
unpopular proposal. >> congresswoman jan schakowsky of illinois, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> all right. imagine the most valuable coin in the world. more valuable than the entire economic output of dozens of countries. now imagine that coin fixing america's self-imposed political crisis. we dream that dream, next. [ nyquil bottle ] you know i relieve coughs, sneezing, fevers... [ tylenol bottle ] me too! and nasal congestion. [ tissue box ] he said nasal congestion. yeah...i heard him. [ female announcer ] tylenol® cold multi-symptom nighttime relieves nasal congestion. nyquil® cold and flu doesn't.
print money. this is not surprising, because, well, it's a very important power. and so you cannot print money and i cannot print money, and mitt romney, even though it seems like he used to when he worked at bain capital, he cannot print money. no, only the federal reserve can print paper money and the secretary of the treasury can mint coins. not just any coins, there are a number of restrictions. for example, the width of the dollar coin, it has to be .043 inches in diameter. there's one seemingly random but possibly extremely important loophole. making coins from platinum. it turns out that's pretty much the discretion of the secretary of the treasury. uss code 51-12 says the secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such spefgss, designs, varieties, quantities,
the basic competence necessary to pay your bills. that republican-made, self-inflicted crisis and the resolution to it created this current man-made self-inflicted crisis that we're in right now. one we're lamely calling the fiscal cliff. the way republicans in congress and the president solved the debt ceiling crisis was to build this cliff, that we're now supposedly dangling off of. they invented this deadline we're up against. the debt ceiling fight was a disaster, and now republicans, surprise, want to have that fight again. "the new york times" reports that one idea bouncing around the right side of the aisle is this. the republicans will extend tax cuts for the middle class, and then when they need to raise the debt ceiling, quote, demand deep concessions on medicare and social security as a price to raise the debt ceiling.
one republican senator reportedly called the debt ceiling the line in the stand. the odds are pretty close to zero that we mint a $1 trillion coin in order to pay off some of the debt. but there's striking movement in the direction of changing the rules so we don't ever have to fight over this completely unnecessary issue ever again. remember, this is important. the debt ceiling isn't about incurring future debt. it's about the money congress has already duly authorized and appropriated and voted to spend. it's not a fight about whether or not to spend money, it's a fight about whether or not to pay your credit card bill. today, the president basically said, no more. i'm done having this dumb fight. i am not going to do it again. >> i want to send a very clear message to people here. we are not going to play that game next year. if congress in any way suggests that they're going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes, and take us to the brink of default once again, as part of a budget negotiation, which, by the way, we have never done in our history, until we did it
last year, i will not play that game. because we've got to break that habit before it starts. >> republicans have a debt ceiling fake crisis habit and the president says he'll break it. and he's backed up by the treasury secretary and the leader of the democrats in the house. >> do you agree with alan greenspan, that we ought to just eliminate the debt ceiling? >> oh, absolutely. >> you do? will you propose that? >> well, you know, this is something that only congress can solve. congress put it on itself. we've had 100 years of experience with it. and i think only once, last summer, did people decide to use it to threaten default on the american credit for the first time in history as a tool for political advantage and that's not a tenable strategy. >> is now the time to eliminate it? >> it would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it, the sooner the better. >> i don't think the debt ceiling has a place in all of this. i think that we continue the mcconnell rule, which says the president sends it over.
if two-thirds of the congress objects, than that is overturned. >> okay. so the mcconnell rule isn't exactly the super awesome trillion-dollar coin idea that i kind of love, but it's not half bad. the president has the power to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for the things that congress has already agreed to pay for, and if congress wants to stop it, they need a two-thirds majority to do it. i am generally pretty wary of increases in congressional authority and decreases in overnight, but in the case of the debt ceiling, there's just no argument for it. the money has already been spent. congress has already spent it. it's just a matter of whether or not you pay the bills. and if all else fails, president obama and tim geithner should start deciding whose that is they want to put on the new $1 trillion coin. i vote for john boehner. a shee, but i don't just put'em in the dryer to freshen up my clothes. i put'em in my shoes, i put'em in my car, i put'em in my vases. girl, i been put'n'em for as long as i can remember.
unlike american colleges and universities, american states are not ranked annually by any national publication for how hard people there party. so we can evaluate, say, the relative raucousness of michigan state, but not the state of michigan. that's the intoxicating irony of this day, repeal day. that's the day prohibition ended. and the 35th state to ratify and
repeal was utah. good looking out. december 5th, repeal day, is a thing. the question is, in the year 2091, will december 6th be a thing? because tomorrow is repeal day too. that story is coming up. [ laughing ] ahh, cloudy glasses. you didn't have to come over! easy. hi. cascade kitchen counselor. look! over time, cascade complete pacs fight film buildup two times better than finish quantum to help leave glasses sparkling. cascade. the clear choice.
sheldon adelson is both a formerly reclusive casino mogul and the newly infamous $100 million bankroller of republican campaigns and thanks to all that giving, now the world's biggest mark for hustling republican consultants. mr. adelson is the subject of a big splashy interview today with "the wall street journal" that is chock-full of surprises. exhibit a, quoting mr. adelson, "look, i'm basically a social liberal. i know no one will believe that." clearly he wants you to believe that. he says he believes in stem cell research, and abortion rights. mr. adelson believes in the dream act for immigration reform. he believes in, this is a quote, socialized-like health care. "wall street journal" adding, quote, that he used to be a democrat, like most jewish americans, until he attended the 1988 democratic convention. he said he was appalled at the self-interested politicians he says were all over the place." just appalled.
i'm sure politics and self-interest in the same place. if your irony meter just broke, it is because it appears the same sheldon adelson who says he rejected democratic politics because of self-interested politicians has become the single biggest donor in republican politics because of, yes, interest. for instance, mr. adelson's casino company is under investigation by the justice department for possible violations of the foreign corrupt practices act. the justice department, of course, is led by an attorney general, chosen by the president, in this case, the same president obama who mr. adelson just spent so much money trying to defeat. mr. adelson's company denies any wrongdoing. and as a very rich man, mr. adelson stands to pay a whole, whole lot more in taxes now that mr. obama has won a second term. and mr. adelson says he intends to double his spending on conservative causes with a particular focus on anti-union measures in the states.
labor unions played a big part in mr. adelson's conversion to democrat to republican kingmaker. he fought with members picketing outside his hotel in las vegas. he tried to fight them in court, until find the supreme court declined to take his case. in testimony for the nevada state ethics commission, future democratic congresswoman and unsuccessful candidate shelly berkeley said adelson had told her, "old democrats were with the union and he wanted to break the back of the union, subsequently he had to break the back of the democrats." that fight, the war with labor changed sheldon adelson from being just another social liberal on the sidelines of politics to sheldon adelson, contributor on an historic scale to republicans who do not share his social values and this goes to a fundamental truth about the republican party. which is that the republican party in its current incarnation is a coalition between missionaries and mercenaries. the republican party is made up of true believers who are really committed to legislating against
abortion rights and immigration. and then you have plutocratic donors like sheldon adelson, who are committed to their bank accounts and their god-given, unfettered rights to do what they want to their workers and with their money. joining us now is felix salmon. wonderful to see you. >> great to see you, chris. >> felix, as someone who reports on and moves in the circle of extremely wealthy people, this kind of politics struck me immediately as very common. >> completely typical. i can't believe remember the last time, if ever, i've met a plutocrat, a rich person who opposes gay marriage. like sheldon adelson said today that he believes in gay marriage. and like, this is -- even david koch says that he believes in gay marriage. the easy, liberal, verities seem to come very easy to these people, just as long as, you said, it doesn't impinge on their bank account. >> it's hedge fund liberalism. >> yes. the other thing that's
interesting, when you think about where wealthy folks are, with respect to the obama administration. and we saw all the data on wall street, the pendulum swinging away from barack obama towards mitt romney, how much of it is genuine self-interest in the sense of, just something as simple as the amount of taxes they will pay? >> i would say all of it. i really would. i would say all of it. the banks have two choices. four years ago, they had the choice between barack obama and they knew exactly who he was going to appoint in terms of ben bernanke and timothy geithner, the combination of the team that had saved the world from utter financial collapse. and that's what they knew they needed. and john mccain, on the other hand, was running around like a headless chicken, and they were scared, they were petrified he would become president, especially with his vice presidential candidate. so they voted in their self-interest, because they knew that the system needed to be saved. now that the system is saved is,
they just want to pay less taxes. >> that gets to this question of narrow self-interest versus broad self-interest. in the case of adelson, this is really important for people to understand. when you're talking these marginal races, this is tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars for people. there's a ton of money on the table. >> if you're earning $400,000 a year, you're still paying less than top marginal rates. it's only the last bit. if you're sheldon adelson, you're paying the marginal rates on basically everything. >> basically everything. but there's also the sense in which the self-interest is very narrow, insofar as when you look at corporate profits being in nominal terms the highest they've ever been. when you talk of, look at the dow, there's all sorts of economic indicators about the health of the 1%, for lack of a better phrase, that says that things are going great, right? why did that not -- why is that not the overdetermining driver for their political behavior? >> because they know that if they elect romney, that's not going to come to an end.
they're not going to suddenly -- >> that's baked into the structure of the american economy? >> they're being given a choice between an economy which has been fantastic for them. labor has done really badly. they're saying, the current situation is great for us. but now we have two choices, between great and even better. are and given the choice, they'll take even better. >> and you talk about liberal pieties or whatever, the hatred of unions. i think that people underestimate, don't get -- and i've encountered this in my reporting, how visceral, almost dogmatic, almost religious and ideological, how fervently that belief is and how common that is among people who make a ton of money. >> it's one of the few times that you find a vague semblance of ideology in these people. because they're very practical, most of the time. whatever works in terms of making money is what they'll all choose.
but you're right, sometimes even when you show them the numbers and say, listen, recognizing unions, you can be more profitable overall, they don't like that. >> felix salmon, reuters finance blogger, who will be live blogging in january, you should check that out, thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. whichever side of the marijuana legalization
79 years ago today, on december 5th, 1933, prohibition in the united states officially came to an end. what you see here before you are people who seem pretty psyched to have a legal drink to celebrate the fact. prohibition was a long time in the making and a long time in the unmaking. and both the path to prohibition and the path out of prohibition were pioneered in the states. states began prohibiting alcohol before the federal government passed the constitutional amendment to do so. and once prohibition was the law of the land, through that constitutional amendment, it was actually states that first began breaking that consensus by basically, in opposition to the federal government, essentially legalizing alcohol. there is a similar movement happening now, happening tomorrow, actually. and 50 years from now or 80 years from now, we may look back on december 6th, 2012, on tomorrow, as an equally epoch ral moment, as the end of
prohibition 2.0. tomorrow washington state will begin the process of implementing the most liberal marijuana regime in the world, along with colorado. on election day this year, voters in both colorado passed ballot initiatives legalizing react rational use of pot. in washington, as of tomorrow, it will no longer be against the law to have in your possession up to an ounce of marijuana if you are over the age of 21. that happens tomorrow in washington state. there are many, many unanswered questions as to how this will work in the actual real world, right? questions the senate police department is trying to answer with its previously lauded for its awesomeness on this show faq page called "marijwhatnow?" but there are many unanswered questions about how this is going to work in washington. for one, it is still illegal to sell marijuana, but perfectly legal to possess an ounce of marijuana, as of tomorrow. and once they have fully
implemented their laws, the states will host legalized, regulated marijuana industries. not just decriminalization, but pot incorporated. licensed by the state and paying taxes to it. this, all while the federal government still views possessing and certainly growing, selling, and distributing marijuana as serious felonies. how's that going to work is the big question that hangs over whatever celebrations the citizens of washington might engage in tomorrow. on a side note, tomorrow is also the first day that same-sex couples will be able to get marriage licenses in washington. then on sunday, they will actually be able to tie the knot. that was another huge stage washington state voters approved in the last election. if you are betting on how this country will evolve in the next few decades in terms of politics and policy, two safe bets. marriage equality and marijuana. both of those policies go into effect tomorrow in washington. the truly fascinating thing here is that starting tomorrow, we will see an abstract debate, an abstract policy discussion that we've had for many years.
should pot be legal? how might it change society? how might it improve it? we'll see those questions turn into real-life issues. tomorrow is the beginning of an amazing national experiment. joining us now is tony decopel, senior writer at "newsweek" and the daily beast, and author of "the new pot barons." thanks for being here, tony. >> thank you for having me. >> this is a statement in the western district of washington, which kind of highlights the issue here. the statement reads, in enacting the controlled substance act, congress determined that marijuana is a schedule one controlled substance, regardless of any changes in state law. he goes on to say, basically, members of public are advised to remember it remains against federal law to bring any amount of marijuana on to federal property, including all federal buildings, national parks, military institutions, and courthouses. this is an indicator, right, of what is going to happen when
this titanic clash has been set up between the state of washington and what the federal government says is illegal. >> absolutely. that's either a rogue u.s. attorney or it's a trial balloon from the obama administration. and i think more likely, it's a trial balloon. because obama himself has said, look, i'm the president, but i can't legalize marijuana, because congress has outlawed it. either way, it is a trial balloon in the sense that it's going to have a chilling effect on the evolution of the industry in washington. the governor of the state, the regulators, when they get together to hash out the structure of the market, they are conspiring to break federal law. they're committing a crime. >> right. so how is that going to play out? in both these states, you have, you know, basically the law says they're going to have legalized marijuana growth and distribution and regulate it. can any of that even take place, unless there is some resolution from the federal government about how they're going to treat it? >> i think the state's going to
move forward and wait to hear. they can't expect any resolution before they move forward. they have one year to do something that no one has ever done, create this unique market. and there are huge unanswered questions, such as, will all potency levels of marijuana be accepted? in amsterdam right now, they're talking about banning anything above 15% thc, which would wipe out a big part of the current medical market. will all the edibles be allowed? you know, do we need rice kris krispie treats and the hot dogs. will felons be able to transfer
nomination and later the white house. this is the building where lincoln gave that speech in the affordable colleges in country, it's free. the guy who gave cooper union the name, peter cooper, an industrialist and inventor and onetime presidential candidate himself believed that the best education should be ax ses i believe to anyone that qualified to get in. anyone including women and people of color. the question of whether a student can pay for tuition, he thought that should be irrelevant. for more than a century now every student has received a full tuition scholarship at one of the best colleges of the
country. that's the mission and history of the cooper union. in its more recent history, school administrators announced to chip away at the policy. they will begin charging tuition for gradual students starting this school year. undergrads are safe for now but maybe later they will have admissions too. they searched for a way out of what it described as a deepening financial hole. despite the recent financial crisis, thousand, the cooper union has maintained $600 million endowment. it owns the land beneath the chrysler building, but the school says it's operating at a loss and the shortfall has to come from somewhere, including from the students. never mind what the school's founder and namesake said about a free education for any student. if you know anything about students, you know the evolving school tuition policy has not been accepted by the student body. they did not shrug and say, oh, well, before stopping in for a
student loan application. instead right now they're staging a sit-in. they barricaded themselves inside an eighth floor rook in the clock tower where lincoln spoke on that legendary night. they've been there since monday setting up camp. we're here, we're staying, we forgot coffee. they demanded the school, quote, publicly affirm its commitment to free education. this morning another group of students invited themselves to the meeting of the board of trustees so they could take minutes arguing they needed transparency and student involvement. students are fighting against rising tuition costs. these guys are fighting to remain one of the few colleges in this country that gives every student a free ride. it's amazing, and it's still untodaying tonight. here's the better geeky part. we know they forgot coffee, but there's a question of pizza. college students going without pizza for a couple of days is not going to happen. through a stroke of genius, it
hasn't happened. last night a group of cooper union alums decided to buy the protestors pizza, but in order to do that they had to figure out how to get the pizza up to the eighth floor of the clock tower from the outside of the building and they did it because they're quality engineers and future engineers we are talking about. but it's not without trial and error. balloons by themselves did not work very well because you cannot control where the balloons take the pizza. the wind has a tendency it to take things where it wants. more balloons were successful at carrying aa string up to the protestors. they used the string to build a pulley system to pull pizzas up to the eighth floor. if you don't keep the box flat, there's a pathetic-looking pizza. it doesn't matter it's fancy pizza. what's the solution? of course, counterweights. inyeen just. balloons plus string plus pulley plus pizza boxes with counterweights to keep them flat equals a delivery of perfect le